Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
D.K. Jain, President and M. Shreesha, Member
USHENDRA AND OTHERS - Appellants
Versus
SUPRINTENDENT, CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE LUDHIANA AND OTHERS - Respondents
Appeal No. 445 of 2007. (Against the Order dated 28/05/2007 in Complaint No. 24 of 2001 of the State Commission None).
Decided on : 24-07-2015
Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, Amicus Curiae, for the Appellant; B.L. Saini, Ravison, Senior Law Officer Dr. Cinosh Mathew, OM Cardiology, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of expert evidence to prove medical negligence and the adherence to standard medical norms influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Medical Negligence - Section 19 - Act Section List: Consumer Protection Act, Section 19 - The court dismissed the complaint due to lack of expert evidence to prove medical negligence. The treatment given to the deceased was found to be in line with medical norms as per the opposite parties' detailed reply and absence of contradicting expert evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The patient was admitted to the hospital with chest pain and passed away due to alleged medical negligence. The complainants sought compensation for loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate & income, mental agony and pain, and medical expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no material evidence to prove medical negligence and that the treatment given to the deceased was in line with medical norms. The burden of proving medical negligence was not met by the complainant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the treatment given to the deceased was negligent and against standard medical norms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that if the treating doctor administered a reasonable degree of skill and followed standard norms of medical practice, it cannot be construed as negligence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
ORDER
M. Shreesha, Member - Challenge in this First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the "Act") by the Complainant, is to order dated 28.05.2007, in Original Complaint No. 24 of 2001, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short the "State Commission"). Vide its impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the Complaint on the ground that there was no expert evidence to substantiate that the treatment given to the deceased was negligent or against the standard medical norms.
2. The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that late Shri Raj Kumar Jaiswal (hereinafter referred to as the "patient"), aged about 42 years, was admitted in the casualty department of Christian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana on 14.4.1998 at about 11.30 p.m. with a complaint of Chest Pain. The second Opposite Party, Dr. B.P. Singh, the Medical Officer on emergency duty, examined the patient and found him to be in a serious condition. It is pleaded by the Complainants herein, the legal heirs of the patient, that the second Opposite Party did not undertake any immediate steps or any emergency treatment despite the fact that the patient was in a serious condition. It is also pleaded that ECG was not done; oxygen was not administered; no injection namely Betnesol and Adrenaline were given; blood pressure was not controlled and it is only due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties that the patient developed Cardiac Respiratory Arrest and died at 12.40 A.M.
3. The first Complainant is the widow of the deceased and is dependent on him and the second, third and fourth Complainants, the young children of the deceased, are students and dependents. It was pleaded that the patient was a Cloth Merchant, earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month. The Complainants prayed for compensation of Rs. 19.71 lakhs, as detailed below:
Loss of Consortium Rs. 4,50,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of Estate & Income Rs. 8,00,000/-
Mental agony and pain Rs. 7,00,000/-
Medical Expenses Rs. 1,000/-
4. The Opposite Parties filed their written version in which they denied that the patient was admitted in the Hospital. It is stated that he was brought into Casualty at around 11.30 p.m. with High BP and Chest pain. The patient was examined by the second Opposite Party who found that the patient had accelerated hypertension with angina or acute myocardial infarction and that the patients condition was very serious. They pleaded that the pulse rate of the patient was 110 per minute and blood pressure was 150/110 and to control the blood pressure the patient was given 5 mg. of S/L Nifedipine; was started on oxygen, E.C.G. was ordered; and I.V. line was established. The patient developed cardiorespiratory arrest and thereafter his B.P. and Pulse were not recordable. The patient was immediately intubated and started on AMBU ventilation and Cardiac Massage. He was put on a cardiac monitor which showed ventricular fibrillation. The patient was given injections Adrenaline and Atropine and was given synchronised cardioversion, but the patient could not be revived. The resuscitative measures were stopped and the patient was declared dead at 12.40 a.m.
5. It is averred by the Opposite Parties that injection Betnesol is not required to be prescribed, or given in such a situation, when the patient was suffering from High Blood pressure. It is specifically pleaded by the Opposite Parties that necessary treatment was given to the patient and he was only brought into Casualty on the intervening night on 14.4.1998 at 11.30 p.m. and he expired at 12.40 a.m. despite all efforts.
6. The State Commission after going through the evidence on record held as follows:
"After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the records, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves dismissal. There is no material evidence on record to prove medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The b
